In most legal systems that I know of, planned and targeted murder is treated as a more serious crime than random, spontaneous murder.

Just saying.

Mr. Evans is right about it not being “100% rational, but not quite perverse and definitely not unusual.” Of course, none of this is 100% rational, but this sectarian solidarity was 100% predictable.

When I first read that the heads of the Arab states were not sympathetic to Hezbollah’s position; I thought, there will be some “back pedaling” on this. The Arab street will rally behind Hezbollah, and these Heads of State will be looking for a way to become more sympathetic. The wanton, perverse, and unnecessary murder of Lebanese civilians by Israel has given them that opportunity. You really would have “to be drunk, crazy, or stupid” to think otherwise.

Also, the killing “motivated by spite” isn’t the one-sided affair you seem to believe it is, and neither side is advancing the interests of civilians. I wouldn’t want anyone to be deluded into thinking that, either.

You are right about the lack of Arab grassroots support for our policies, right now – I believe Friedman could ride in cabs all day long, and not find one driver cheering for Israel/US over Hezbollah.

I love the Freidman reference. I have stated more than once, Friedman makes them up. He meets people who agree with him line for line on his way to the toilet. Friedman and his three Pulitzers is a fraud. (Admittedly I have no proof. But his stories have zero cogency).

Well, I'm sure that is true or shortly will be, but on the other hand I don't see any value in comparing massacres.

On the other hand, I don't see any value in singling out one side's massacres, either, which seems to be the predilection on both sides here.

I suppose you mean that figuratively, as it makes little sense even in the coldest of the Cold War. At least from 1962, when the first Single Integrated Operating Plan (SIOP) was written, bringing civilian input into what had been mostly SAC unilateral targeting, US targeting options were other than pure countercity. What you seem to be describing is what Herman Kahn called "spasm" war, or, in one of his more quotable lines, "Gentlemen, you don't have a war plan. You have a wargasm."

I cannot see the US launching a massive countercity strike even if it lost three cities. Part of that is the blunt reality that it may be more necessary to prevent further damage by prioritizing key Soviet military facilities. Moscow is a tough call, and possibly Kiev, since you might still want to negotiate with someone. Do you target their deepest shelter at Zhiguli?

Again, I'm assuming you are being figurative about the US Army, since the Army has no weapons that could hit Russia.

It's fairly rare to see totally emotional US responses, and, when you understood their ideology, USSR. (I'm not talking about internal things like the Great Terror). I see much more irrational, emotional targeting from both Israel and its neighbors.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes, no doubt Hizballah's rockets have gone off course frequently enough to be considered civilian attacks. I don't know enough about the terrain on the border there to know how close civiliam targers are to the military targets.

Don't know what Hizballah would do with true guided missiles. Don't know if they have any. They certainly had something that hit that Israeli corvette off the coast.

On some military groups, there's considerable debate on what hit the corvette. Several people have suggested a Chinese C-600 series, but others pointed out with the size of its warhead, there wouldn't have been much left of a corvette.

As you may know, even with guidance, except for man-in-the-loop (e.g., TV or IR imaging, or laser designation) and some things really in development, radar-guided missiles to hit targets at sea generally can't hit targets on land, and vice versa. The problems of recognizing a target against waves and against land are too different.

While the US forbids US satellite companies to release high-resolution imagery of the middle east, there's enough French and Russian commercial imagery that commercial/business intelligence services probably have a pretty good idea. Such a service won't be cheap. For whatever reasons, the MSM isn't subscribing to any.

The best online archive of maps of which I'm aware, which probably does have some urban maps and possibly older imagery, is the Perry-Castañeda Map Library at the University of Texas. It really would be a group effort, but perhaps some college group might print the large maps, and then correlate damage from what news photos and satellite imagery they can get. Let's put it this way: it isn't just major power intelligence services that can do this any more. It's also not a job for beginners; photointerpretation and photogrammetry are arts as well as sciences.

Interesting that you asked about possible Hizbollah guided missiles. I did a bit of research, and there really would be few if any that would fit their tactical requirement: small enough to be set up by a few men, has a high trajectory and doesn't need a line of sight (which means the other guys can see you), and isn't optimized against tanks. US troops would probably use 81 or 120mm mortars, which you can mount in a truck. US artillery rockets are much bigger. The Javelin missile probably has too short a range and is antitank. Pretty much everything the US and Russia has as short-range missiles would launch from an airplane, UCAV or helicopter.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*